My client asked me to switch recruitment agency, can I do that?

[eek]

Given the behaviour of the current agency and the state of the current market, I'd just get on with it and chance any outcome.

Defer the argument further down the line and maintain some income.

There is zero point switching agency if the client is refusing to pay bills and heading towards bankruptcy.

[Lance]

There is zero point switching agency if the client is refusing to pay bills and heading towards bankruptcy.

the client gets another week or two for free though

[CoolCat]

I've been on a contract via Recruitment agency for some time.

I've recently received an email from the agency that my contract is now paused because the client owes them significant amount of money. They said that it will be restarted when they receive all the money.

The client asked me to switch to different recruitment agency and continue to work with them and asked me to terminate my existing contract with the first recruiter.

However, the old recruitment agency told me that I can't work for the same client directly or via different recruitment agency.

It is also stated in the contract - my restricted period is 12 months.

What should I do?

Is it ok to carry on with the new recruitment agency?

What happens if the previous recruiter finds out, who will be liable, can they take me to the court and demand money?

Thank you.

normally the restriction is just on your company or umbrella, not on you the individual. if yours is like that you can go back by forming a new limited and going via that, or going via a different umbrella. you need to find out if its the client or the agency in financial trouble, or maybe they have just fallen out with each other. if the client is in financial trouble I wouldnt be going back regardless.

[FIERCE TANK BATTLE]

Sounds like they're not opted out so the agency is on the hook if the client won't pay up and they're bricking it and trying to reduce their losses.

Handcuff clauses always seem to be, if you go direct we'll kick up such a fuss that the client will you drop you rather than deal with the barrage of crap we send their way.

Obviously this is a rare case where the client isn't going to care if they're actually asking you. I have no idea if they're enforceable.

If the agency is asking you not to work and you work directly, I can't see how they would be able to claim that as a loss of earnings unless the calamity is the contractor's fault which it doesn't appear to be.

Also read your contract, I've been opted out and still had a clause saying that they'll pay even the client doesn't pay them in the contract before. I've also signed contracts where they didn't put a handcuff clause at all.

IANAL

[northernladuk]

normally the restriction is just on your company or umbrella, not on you the individual. if yours is like that you can go back by forming a new limited and going via that, or going via a different umbrella. you need to find out if its the client or the agency in financial trouble, or maybe they have just fallen out with each other. if the client is in financial trouble I wouldnt be going back regardless.

You are wrong... As usual. There is a thing called piercing the corporate veil where they look beyond the structure of the business and can focus on the individual. Things like when damp course companies give 25 year guarantees and then switch companies every 5 meaning gaurantee is useless. If it can be proven they are doing this to avoid the contracted obligations they can pierce the corporate veil to go after the director.

[BlasterBates]

I'm not so sure that's true. Using that argument then every project where a cobtracote didn't get paid so rolled their sub contractors off would end up in court.
There is no obligation to provide work, bearing in mind the contract is with the agency so doesn't it apply to them? Normally client doesn't provide it but there is no relationship between he client and contractor so technically the agency passed that lack of work on? Its really always between contractor and agency. Just doesn't look like it.

I think you will find that a contractor is not bound to complete a contract, and adhere to notice periods and handcuff clauses when the agency has no work. That would imply an agency can simply get contractors sign them up, tell them there's no work and put them out of the market for 3-6 months.

[northernladuk]

I think you will find that a contractor is not bound to complete a contract, and adhere to notice periods and handcuff clauses when the agency has no work. That would imply an agency can simply get contractors sign them up, tell them there's no work and put them out of the market for 3-6 months.

And it's that is an unreasonable situation in which binning the contract off would be the correct thing to do. There is no valid business reason for it. This is not one of those situations. There is a genuine business issue that once resolved will carry on as normal. If the contract does breach and the agency gets paid so work starts the agency can quite easily sue for losses.

As I said earlier, if ever subcontractor breaches at the first sniff of a non payment it would be complete anarchy out there.

What can be done can change in different situations but no one action is valid across the board. What can be done when the agent is taking the piss is totally different to a valid business situation.

[simes]

Buy why do you think the agency is behaving like this. You've missed a key point as usual.

Have I?

Which agency's behaviour are you randomly alluding to?

In respect to your question of Why, is not the more important question then likely to be Why is the Client as opposed to the Agency behaving like this?

Either way, from the contractor's point of view, these are my thoughts which may offer some clues to my suggestion.

1. The client and Agency 1 may be having an argument about something unrelated to anything to do with his contract?
2. If so, the contractor has just been caught up in it. Which admittedly is tough.
3. If the client is suggesting moving to another agency to continue working and 'maybe' start getting paid, then, Why not?
4. My thinking for this is, he is likely working from home, which means his daily outlay is nothing, which means he can start looking for other things, which because of the market is likely to take A-Long-Time, which means he can do both at the same time with little or no financial loss to him.
5. If the OP does all this, he can suggest invoicing weekly to the agency 2, and at the first sign that they will not pay him, then he knows something afoot. Cue the dangerous music, da da dahhh.
6. At which point, he downs tools and all he does with his day is, Look for another contract.

So, while I am sure you are a shining light in your own bathroom, I am not sure I have missed anything that we are ever likely to know the absolute truth about. Which may mean my initial suggestion might be a way forward...

[eek]

Have I?

Which agency's behaviour are you randomly alluding to?

In respect to your question of Why, is not the more important question then likely to be Why is the Client as opposed to the Agency behaving like this?

Either way, from the contractor's point of view, these are my thoughts which may offer some clues to my suggestion.

1. The client and Agency 1 may be having an argument about something unrelated to anything to do with his contract?
2. If so, the contractor has just been caught up in it. Which admittedly is tough.
3. If the client is suggesting moving to another agency to continue working and 'maybe' start getting paid, then, Why not?
4. My thinking for this is, he is likely working from home, which means his daily outlay is nothing, which means he can start looking for other things, which because of the market is likely to take A-Long-Time, which means he can do both at the same time with little or no financial loss to him.
5. If the OP does all this, he can suggest invoicing weekly to the agency 2, and at the first sign that they will not pay him, then he knows something afoot. Cue the dangerous music, da da dahhh.
6. At which point, he downs tools and all he does with his day is, Look for another contract.

So, while I am sure you are a shining light in your own bathroom, I am not sure I have missed anything that we are ever likely to know the absolute truth about. Which may mean my initial suggestion might be a way forward...

So basically you are suggesting that going to agency 2 is risk free and ignoring the fact that chances are the only reason is

the client gets another week or two for free though

[simes]

So basically you are suggesting that going to agency 2 is risk free and ignoring the fact that chances are the only reason is

Oh Lord!

Ok, you tell me. Where is the risk, and then define it - from the contractor's point of view.

There is risk in everything but I believe in my bullets, I had identified and qualified them vis a vis the current market and climate.

If Risk is a problem for you, then how have you dealt with the last 20 years of IR35, for the love all things holy.

There's a time for getting stuck in and having a look, and maybe a time for endless procrastination. I believe this might be a time for the former...